Though Apple has not officially revealed the terms of its new recurring application subscription service, publishers across Europe reportedly feel "betrayed" and have planned a summit in London later this month.

As reported Wednesday by mocoNews.net, publishers in Europe are upset with Apple and its apparent rejection of Sony's e-reader application for iOS devices. Sony revealed to The New York Times this week that its digital bookstore was blocked from the App Store by Apple.

In response, the head of the International Newsmedia Marketing Association, which represents about 5,000 members in 80 countries worldwide, reportedly plans to meet with the European Online Publishers Association in an invitation-only roundtable on Feb. 17 in London. It was said that the two organizations plan to "compare notes" on Apple's subscription rules for iOS software.

"Some say they feel betrayed," said Grzegorz Piechota, European resident of the INMA. "They believed that it would be a great way to access content from newspapers and magazines. So they hyped the iPad, and many of them invested in apps for it."

"By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market."

Piechota claims that Apple has been inconsistent in communicating and implementing new policies. He noted that Apple denied that it has changed its policies on the App Store, but is instead now enforcing already established rules.

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase," Apple spokeswoman Trudy Miller said.

Publishers in Europe first caught wind of Apple's plans last month, when a number of daily newspapers revealed that they were told by Apple they could no longer offer paid print subscribers free access to an iPad edition through the App Store. By offering free access to existing subscribers, newspapers can avoid charging for access through the iPad, and can avoid paying Apple a 30 percent cut of all transactions on the App Store.

Apple's head of iTunes, Eddy Cue, was asked on Wednesday about Apple's new recurring application subscription plans, which debuted with the launch of the new tablet-only newspaper The Daily. But Cue declined to reveal any details on the new application subscription feature, and said that Apple would reveal more details in the near future.

The print media better hurry up and figure it out or their collective "goose is cooked!"

I think the first thing they need to agree on is that subscriptions on the iPad should be a lot cheaper than print subscriptions. If not people will forgo both iPad and print subscriptions and seek out free content on the web.

Jobs showed with iTunes/music that "easy" sometimes trumps "free!"

The print media has been belly-aching about this for years....with 14 million iPads sold, looks like we have reached a tipping point. Again, much like the decline in traditional music/CD sales.

Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.

"By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market."

Yes, these publishers MADE the iPad successful. They in no way wanted to attach themselves to the Apple Gravy Train.
In fact, if it wasn't for these publishers, Apple would still be beleaguered!
How DARE Apple ask for compensation for it's work!!!???
We publishers need to have a nice retreat to a resort somewhere to talk about how powerful we are.

Yes, these publishers MADE the iPad successful. They in no way wanted to attach themselves to the Apple Gravy Train.
In fact, if it wasn't for these publishers, Apple would still be beleaguered!
How DARE Apple ask for compensation for it's work!!!???
We publishers need to have a nice retreat to a resort somewhere to talk about how powerful we are.

Once again, a failing industry moaning about the lifeline being thrown. Let em drown.

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

as big as sony is shouldn't they be able to have their own effing system to put of media like the ipad?
All these tech managers want a free ride on Apple so they won't have to accrue certain business costs. Remember the EU and itunes?
Sony is fu***** lazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

...

This is a gross misrepresentation of what Apple requires. Apple requires that apps that direct users to download paid material outside the app also allow users to purchase paid material from inside the app. They must give the user the choice.

Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

iPad stands to bring in much more revenue and ultimately cut down the overhead for publishing companies tremendously. Apple isn't required to support other companies in an aim that is counter-intuitive. Obviously, print magazines aren't something that Apple intends on distributing. Digital magazines are. If you want to get behind the revolution, and invest in the future, play by the rules that Apple has instituted. If you want to live in the past, and watch as more and more of your competitors flock to a primarily digital or all digital model... then by all means, no one is forcing you to use App Store. Let a hackneyed platform like Android try to serve your needs and see how many of those customers are willing to pay for content.

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

Reported in this month's MacWorld Magazine, a University of Missouri survey found that 58% of those who subscribe to print newspapers and spend more than an hour reading news on their iPad said they were very likely to cancel their print subscriptions in the next six months; 10% said they had already cancelled.

"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase," Apple spokeswoman Trudy Miller said.

I think it's quite a good rule to enforce. That's one thing that put me off using Stanza. It would take you out of the app and onto a browser to buy books with Paypal and then they end up sending you marketing emails.

More than anything, it was just a cumbersome process to actually buy a book and get it into the app to read.

Publishers would be wise to play along with the rules. I can see the usual 'well we're going to go with Android instead' response coming down the line from publishers but few people even want subscription magazines any more. The iPad is one of the few devices to get the display, form factor and input response right for this type of content.

All it takes is one publisher to get on the iPad, start raking in the money and suddenly the rules won't start to look too bad to everyone else.

Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.

Who says it will be 30% - I think Eddy Cue said that an announcement is forthcoming. This sounds somewhat reminiscent of before apps were done on the iPhone at all. Everyone has a solution and many predicted gloom and doom. Looks like it turned out pretty good to me. How many apps could you buy (for anything) before the iPhone app price brought prices down to as low as $0.99 and a lot lof them for $2.99 or less?

... Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? ...

Because the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. If your app and it's content, in and of itself, generates revenue, you agree to share that revenue with Apple.

Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?

I for one am listening to a nasty buzz - sounds about like flys buzzing around a pile...

So Apple should support the publishing industry? Is that what you are saying? If you have a business can I put my sign in your window and sell my goods for free? Didn't think so.

BTW: who the hell is ben and why do we care if you've had him for 25 yrs.?

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.
...

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

You are way over-reacting here and not thinking either.

1) Giving customers the *option* of buying content through the iTunes Apps store is not the same thing as "submitting all their business to one man." It's not even close. In fact it's an inherently fair and even-handed proposition to make.

2) A subscriber can't purchase digital content through a paper publication, because there would be no way of verifying that customer if they don't actually have an iTunes account. What's the paper going to do, give out coupons? And how will those coupons be validated?

3) Apple is only getting "more draconian" in your mind. Stope believing what you read so much and think for yourself. Do some research into the facts yourself instead of just flipping out over whatever someone tells you or something you read.

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

Apple does not want money from every subscription. What Apple has said so far is if you can subscribe outside iTunes Apple wants the users to be able to subscribe from within iTunes also. Yes, Apple will get 30% from every user if they subscribe within iTunes.

Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?

This made me laugh. Oh yea, lets go sue apple, that will change them! News flash dude– no it won't. Apple pretty much does whatever they want, and if you've really been around for 25 years then you would know that already. It's just the way apple works. They have their opinion about what users want, and they don't really care about the people who don't want it that way. (Want to complain about flash? apple isn't listening. iPhone not working? "You're holding it wrong." Etc.)

I love apple and I think their stuff is great, but I've long since given up expecting apple to "hear" me, it just doesn't work that way. Pretty much all you can do is get on forums and bitch. It's like group therapy for us apple lovers.

I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.

Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.

This will be like most of these little tiffs, it will come out that some guy supposedly rejected it based on the current terms but Apple will fix it or make a deal allowing this to happen, at least that's what they will do if they are smart. If they don't...well, bad idea.

This will only make my Kindle and Amazon's selection better, stronger, and cheaper.

But it's their fault- just look what happened to the music industry - they got tricked too. That's why the movie/film/ TV industry never, ever played Steve Jobs' game. They were the wisest as they now hold the card with all the available options out there now. You snooze, you lose.

Funny reading the whining going on here. Apparently, researching and coming to an informed decision before shooting off is something that's not done well here.

Apple's want's to give users the OPTION. Personally, from a user's viewpoint I think it's a good idea. I would prefer to get one "bill" from one spot. If I end up subscribing to multiple digital magazines and all of them required a separate payment model, that would be a mess to maintain. However, keeping it all nice-and-neat in one place is much more preferred me think.

I can understand the publishers b***hing about it, but this is more about the consumer. As far as I'm concerned, the entire industry had decades to come up with something but they sat on their chubby backsides. Now a new player comes in and shakes everything up, the users love it, and the media suddenly thinks everything is unfair. Boo hoo, cry me a river.

Apple does not want money from every subscription. What Apple has said so far is if you can subscribe outside iTunes Apple wants the users to be able to subscribe from within iTunes also. Yes, Apple will get 30% from every user if they subscribe within iTunes.

This is my take on Apple's intention as well. They are not intending on taking away the ability to subscribe outside of the app. That said, users will take the easy approach, and would rather click a button rather than go thru a web site.

If I were the app developer, I would make the ability to get a subscription via the web very prominent in the app, and make it more difficult to find the subscription via iTunes button.

I have been using Zinio for several years to subscribe to magazines, rather than get print editions (although some are in addition to print editions). All of those back issues are readily available to my Zinio iPad app. I don't think that is going to change.

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

No one is forcing anything on anyone. They can walk. They can pull their apps. They can go to Android.

The whining and moaning over this hyped-up Sony story is simply uninformed nonsense. Apple is asking no more of these folks than every developer with an app on the App Store with a paid app is subject to, and every piece of music, movie and TV show sold through iTunes is subject to. For publishers to be treated differently would invite a lot of potential problems for Apple. If Apple was being consistent and treated everyone the same way as these publishers are demandingApple would have to forego its 30% for everything. That is simply silly.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Is it not obvious? Apple gets moaned at for charging 99 dollars per year for the SDK and hosting your app(s), no matter how many you apps you create. That's far less than on other platforms. Like Apple is supposed to take that and run along like a good little boy.

If you take this new Daily app as an example, there is new content EVERY day! Let's say that was another publisher who tried to make a free app of each issue instead, and only once a week. That's 52 new apps per year! Hosted by Apple, at Apple's expense! And created off of Apple's development efforts. How many thousands of downloads by a growing readership?

So, we have this case where a dying industry, yes dying, is propping up its traditional but dying business model and putting off the inevitable by... taking what free parts it can get from Apple in order to make its declining business look more attractive to new subscribers.

Yes, new subscribers are coming to the publications ON THE STRENGTH OF the iPad App that gets offered for free if they take up a subscription. So, not only is Apple helping prop up the business, Apple is responsible for the new business in the first place. The interest in the iPad is what is keeping the print industry alive.

And what happens? The subscriber throws the hardcopy in the bin and takes the iPad App version around with them, thank you very much. Trees are cut down, electricity is used in print production, oil is used in distribution, and for what? The dying industry's pride and delusion. Of course they can't afford a few pence for Apple, because they are beleaguered.

The Daily can create 100 pages per day using interesting UIs and interactive elements and charts and video and other media, because it has embraced the new business model and paradigm. The others are barely offering static PDF-based pages because they are hardly getting their feet wet; they want to keep the hard copy model, continue the hard copy model, and maybe produce a half-hearted copy on the side for the iPad, as free apps (or at full hardcopy price per issue which is also ridiculous), in order to entice new subscriptions and be able to say, "see, we're hip and moving with the times."

Yes, Apple is offering a lifeline. The dying print industry can adopt a new business model, production workflow, supply chain and distribution model in which there is long-term, sustainable value for everyone along the value chain; and as a business model and service, it serves the end user better to boot. Publishers need to get with the program and offer something good in the 99c per week range -- and they could have millions of new subscribers over night, on each and every publication in their stable. The world is their oyster and it is being handed to them on a silver platter.

So true. They can take their content to Android where everything is stolen.

The publishers love the idea of walls, they just don't want to have to pay a cut to anyone who made the garden a reality. The fact is that you can do apps for Android and try to sell them, watch them get stolen, and then consider that as an indie you're a hell of a lot better off on the platform with Apple taking a cut. The odds are you'll make more after that cut than you will on the open platform.

I don't see the evil in that - users seem happy, developers seem (mostly) happy, and nobody is forced into it - not users, not developers, not publishers either.

Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.

Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.

Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.

Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?

"Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform." No, none of these deals are "exclusive" to iTunes, so publishers can support other platforms if they wish. No one's hand is being forced. They chose to be on the App Store.

"Why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes?" Uh, because it costs Apple real money to make these apps (which are usually free) available thru iTunes and then it costs Apple even more to provide the subscribed-to editions. You think?

Please don't make this god-awful, "take my ball and go home" argument, it's just dumb and makes the person that says it look bad. Like like you're just too damn uppity (read:lazy) to provide a coherent opinion of your own.

Obviously if there is an issue then is an issue. If things were perfect the way they were, then they wouldn't have posted an article and we wouldn't be discussing it in a forum. The whole reason it exists is BECAUSE the two sides don't see eye to eye, so lets talk about what can be done to make it better, rather then just telling one side or the other to f___ off.

Apple needs to stop pissing people off and be consistent with their rules and not just change it or enforce, reinforce things whenever they feel like it or whenever they get around it.

Android is taking off because Apple allowed it to (not intentionally) by being inconsistent with rules, pissing people off with our way or the highway attitude.

Let's face it iOS devices are popular because of contents. If content providers start getting turned off by Apple's attitude and stop supporting iOS, then...

Apple need content providers as much as content providers need Apple. The difference that could trouble Apple is that they're not only game in town. Say all you want about Android but fact is it's all over. No I don't own an Android device but I would hate it if I have to own one because it'll be the only choice.

"By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market."

Truly laughable! These clowns actually think that their broken business model is what has made the iPad such a success? Sorry boys but the reverse is true. You are riding on the backs of this successful product, and its hugely successful platform (iTunes, iPhone, etc.).

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? When you go and fill up your car with fuel the service station doesn't have to pay Toyota a penny.

Frankly it's absurd and Apple have stepped way, way over the line here. This is the type of behaviour which can turn consumers very quickly indeed, and from looking at the reports and videos of Honeycomb, that Xoom tablet is looking very nice indeed.

"By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market."

Truly laughable! These clowns actually think that their broken business model is what has made the iPad such a success? Sorry boys but the reverse is true. You are riding on the backs of this successful product, and its hugely successful platform (iTunes, iPhone, etc.).

You don't think Kindle is a killer app for the iPad? It's hugely more popular than iBooks and for good reason.

as big as sony is shouldn't they be able to have their own effing system to put of media like the ipad?
All these tech managers want a free ride on Apple so they won't have to accrue certain business costs. Remember the EU and itunes?
Sony is fu***** lazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Jesus wept. Every fucking thread some moron doesnt understand that Sony have their own damn mechanism for putting media on the iPad, and Apple have banned it.